Speed and Delivery

1. It is the debater's responsibility to get arguments, facts, and warrants into my brain through their speeches. I do not want to be on any email chains for evidence or speeches. I do not want to review evidence after the round unless I have to because there are serious accusations or something.

2. While I think high school performance debates are often executed poorly (though when they're great they're great), I have become convinced by the logic of performance debate: that how we perform is at least as important as the content of our performances, possibly more. A good performance is subversive and persuasive, and even when you are focusing on argumentation, you should know that everything you do is performative and you should try to maximize the potential of your performance in debate.

3. Taglines and citations and the internal warrants of cards must be clear as a freaking bell if you want them on my flow. Usually that means you need to slow down your entire speech significantly. And it means that not only should these elements be spoken slower, but they should be spoken with more force.

4. Jargon (debate jargon, political jargon, topic-specific jargon, undefined philosophical terms, acronyms of any kind) is difficult to follow and rhetorically bad for political and philosophical arguments. I'm a big fan of George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language."

5. Probably just stop trying to spread. You can speak fast when you're intentionally trying to persuade the judge rather than outpace your opponent.

Overall

I try to be unbiased, but I realize that inevitably personal biases affect how we hear arguments. So I'll try to disclose some of mine. I debated Policy through high school and competed in nearly every forensics event (though there are several new ones since then). I studied English and Political Science in college. I love debate as a program and speech an art form and skill.

I don't like it when debaters pander to my preferences, especially when they venture into arguments they are unfamiliar with to do so.

Argument Preferences

Policy:

I enjoy kritiks more than traditional policy making analysis. I don't think topicality is an instant win for the negative (or the affirmative, for that matter), nor do I think it should be used as a time-suck. If you go for topicality, prove to me that it's a voter. Just after high school, I would have said that impact calculation is extremely important to my ballot, but I've become skeptical of the scale high school debates sometimes get to. Make a persuasive case for how I should evaluate the round.

Lincoln Douglas:

I want the debate to be about moral philosophy--not policy making. The last time I judged LD, I had a strong sense that it needs to figure out what it is. Is it solo Policy or does it have a unique identity? If you have a strong case that it should be something specific, I want you to demonstrate it winningly.

Public Forum:

More than other debates, public forum should be an exercise in communication. It should be an accessible, expressive forum to sort out political ideas. Other than that, just persuade me. Please make the final focus a 1-2 argument articulation of the most important reasons you should win the debate--not a line-by-line of the flow. If you need to clean something up on the flow, do it in the summary. I recognize that there's just not time to debate PF like Policy or LD, so I will not be as reliant on what arguments were covered/extended in my decisions.

Some Logistics

I expect you to know the rules, not me. Please time yourselves if possible, though it's no big deal if I need to time.

Personal Notes

Here are some random facts about me: I'm a Mormon, a Democrat, a father, a feminist, a teacher, a healthcare IT professional, and a poetry nerd. I don't expect any of these identities to affect me greatly in the round, but they exist, and you should be aware of how they affect my perception of politics.

Harvard updates:

Email: tchathur16@gmail.com

No disclosure theory! For real though.. I cannot vote on text message screenshots with emojis and haha reactions... like is that not judge intervention?! It seems that I am attracting a lot of FW vs K aff debates and something you need to do in LD as both parties is engage with the other side rather than this infinitely regressive up layering strategy people seem to be going for. LD is different from policy in that you do not have the privilege of a debate partner standing up in a separate speech doing that work for you!

Affiliations: Barrington high school

I debated LD on the local and nat circuits for four years at Barrington High School. I competed in college policy at UW-Madison and graduated in 2021! :)

TL;DR: Have fun! Don’t be mean. Read anything you want in front of me as long as it’s well explained and warranted. Slow down for tags, authors, interps, numbers, and important issues in the final rebuttals. Don’t be a sexist, homophobic, racist etc. debate is a safe space and you are not welcome here if you intentionally hurt others. If you have any questions please ask. Rupaul's Drag Race references make my day better and will be reflected in your speaks <3 <3

Speed/In round things: Go as slow or as fast as you want, but please please please please please please be clear. I want an email chain. Please disclose otherwise we're going to have a debate about disclosure theory and I really will be sad judging that debate. Like extremely sad and your speaks will probably suffer. I'm good with flex prep just sort that out with your opponent. I get that prep time is super stressful and I'm not going to enforce the prep ends when you send out the email chain. Just take your prep and then you can send it out (IN A TIMELY MANNER PLEASE).

Policy

Plans: If you're planning on having like 80 million blip cards please slow down for tags and authors :)

Cps: consult Cps are probably theoretically illegitimate but that being said you can have that theory debate and I feel confident judging that type of debate; should be competitive; I also don't really care if it's topical or non-topical either as long as it's won.

DAs: (true for plans too) Super long link chains etc will require more from you to win the arg; other than that do your thing

K (AFF): If you have sensitive content trigger warning please! I am also totally good with performance affs using songs, narratives, and poems (and yall can go for them as offense too). Also, if I think your aff is super strategic, meaningful and well-written, regardless of the outcome of the round you’ll likely get high speaks because I love it when debaters put a lot of thought into their advocacies. If you’re hitting FW(policy framework not value and value criterion) there’s got to be a good analysis on the impact turns (same applies to T and theory).

(Neg): I'm fine with anything, just as long as you slow down in the 2NR and really take time to explain what is going on. I may not always be super super familiar with super Pomo args so just make sure to crystallize and explain the implication of your args. If the K is your A strat Don’t concede the permutation. Just don’t do it.I need a good link story and how the alt frames the aff in the 2NR or I will probably be more compelled to vote on the 2AR responses . I also think K tricks are pretty strategic, go for the floating PIK/value to life arguments/linear Das to the aff. I think the aff should be prepared to deal with a lot of these strategies and it’ll take some work to get me to vote otherwise because most of the time the neg is ahead on this issue.

Condo: This is more of a policy thing but if you read like 7 conditional advocacies as the negative, I’ll sympathize with the affirmative in the sense that 1ar extensions don’t need to be the best because TIME SKEW IS REAL. Also, I’ll probably err aff on that theory debate just because it’s the burden of proof on the negative to tell me why reading so many conditional advocacies is good for education and is a fair practice—but hey if you win it I’ll vote on it. I’ll grant the negative one conditional advocacy as a default though since it is necessary to test the affirmative from multiple angles.

FW: makes the game work

T: YEET. T is fine and I enjoy debating T in policy. Multiple T interps is probably unfair but whatever y'all gotta do y'all gotta do. Default competing interps.

LD:

I believe that theory can be used as a winning strategy, since I did this a lot as a debater. I AM TOTALLY OK with 1Ns going for frivolous theory as long as it’s convincing enough of an abuse story. However, 1AR metatheory is given a lot of lee way (don’t know if I spelled that right) for multiple shells and other off cases. In terms of debating theory, I am super persuaded by good standards overviews in your final speeches instead of going for the nitty gritty line by line. Often times, I think debaters just get lost on the tech aspect of theory but don’t actually weigh their arguments. If there’s no weighing done I will have to intervene and I probably won’t be happy doing it. I default to theory coming before substance.. not sure why some people make the argument that contention offense comes first. I won’t vote on it if you make it.. so don’t make it :P. If you’re going for a non traditional voter like substantive engagement, you’ll have to do some work telling me why it comes before fairness and education.

I meets: don’t just say I meet and not fully warrant your explanation; if I can’t remember why you meet the interp at the end of the round then I will probably drop you and you won’t be happy.

RVIs: I default to no RVI. Obvi I’ll vote on it if it’s justified and explained clearly.

Drop the Debater vs. Drop the Arg: DD as a default. I’ll vote on drop the arg if it’s won.

Tricks/Spikes/Fun Stuff: People don’t usually read a wall of spikes anymore, but if that applies to your aff here are a few things to keep in mind when you’re debating in front of me:

1) I don’t want the case to be an unintelligible block of text. I.e there needs to be some form of demarcation within the wall of spikes so I know how many/what arguments you have

2) I can’t believe this was ever a thing but concealing spikes within spikes is probably a good way to lose the round in front of me. For example, saying “all neg interps are counterinterps because of x,y,z. Furthermore, [totally new spike that’s unrelated to the previous spike]”. No one’s going to be able to flow that, and I certainly will not flow it. If it’s not on my flow then I cannot vote on it.

3) Definitely have fun with tricks and spikes and other funny arguments you want to read. I really enjoyed these debates and think they are quite fun. If you are able to successfully go for a win off of a dropped spike that’s a win 30—no questions asked. If there are clear internal links to fairness and education in your spikes you don’t need to spend too much time on extending them in the 1AR. A simple “voter for fairness and education drop the debater because [] no RVI because []” is sufficient.

Condo: see policy

K: see policy

Policy args: see policy

Actual FW LD Debate: don’t pref me unless you’re going to rely on some trick or something to spike out of their offense or will actually crystallize and explain stuff to me because honestly I am incompetent at evaluating competing ethical FWs.

Traditional Debate: WEIGHWEIGHWEIGH. Even if it’s not nat debate just explain stuff to me with good overviews. Also traditional debate does not mean that tech isn’t an issue. A dropped argument is a true argument. Don’t make me vote on the value debate because I definitely will not do that. I default to both cases valuing morality so don’t even bother wasting time on that argument if your opponent has a value of morality.

Experience

18th year in debate. Currently the Director of Debate at SF Roosevelt from South Dakota. Debated 4 years in high school doing traditional LD. Since then I have coached circuit and conservative policy and public forum debate.

Big things - quickly

-Novice: if you aren't prepared for any of the below then don't worry! Just do your thing and welcome to the most educational activity on the planet! Also no matter how unprepared you feel, I didn't know the rebuttal even existed in my first debate! Is this activity hard? Yes. But doing hard things will make everything else in your life easy. All the nerves, preparation, late nights, and beat downs against people whose ACT score blew mine out of the water prepared me for a life where everything was much easier. Stick with it and you'll thank me later! Half of college freshman drop out in their first year, but debaters finish college over 95% of the time - that is no accident!

-Warrants win. Turns win. Weighing wins. Offense wins. Yes I flow.

-Big believer in collapsing in the 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary. Do not go for everything! Your first two speeches add up to 8 minutes and your last speech is 2. How do you expect to go for 8 minutes of argumentation in 2 minutes without sacrificing some serious quality?! Many have tried - all have failed.

-Evidence should be accurately applied throughout the entire debate. It is very annoying when you read 8 minutes of evidence and then never talk about it again. I could have been hanging out with my dogs.

-Quoted evidence is more credible than paraphrased evidence by quite a bit. Paraphrased evidence is more credible than analytics, but only by a little bit.

-I believe the activity is approaching the point where it should be the norm to send all the evidence you read over to your opponent, before your speech, rather than doing this inefficient 1 card at a time nonsense. Whatever you do, please be efficient and it won't be considered prep time.

-If you are at a TOC bid tournament and don't disclose on the wiki then you should consider me a solid 50/50 on voting for disclosure theory.

Small things - rant style

This event should be accessible to all--meaning please keep your rate of delivery in check. No... that does not mean you have to be painfully slow. In fact, you can go fast enough where a typical person would think to themselves "that person is speaking fast." That person, however, should not think to themselves "I can not understand them." 98% of PF debaters are within my expectation here--the 2% should know who you are. Both teams have the right to request their opponent to slow down if they are struggling to keep up. Debate should be for everyone and not just those who can afford debate camp and those who speak English as their first language. If both teams love fast debate, and everyone agrees to it, then let's go all out speed because I enjoy fast debate too (just give me a heads up).

Crossfire is less important to me than most--if something important happens, get it on the flow in your next speech. Grand crossfire is not an opportunity to bring in arguments you didn't get to in the summary. If it wasn't in the summary and the final focus, I probably won't vote on it. Yes, you should frontline in the 2nd rebuttal.

Public Forum time structures are probably not suitable for debating Kritiks with alternatives. However, debating ethics directly related to the topic and arguing it outweighs/should come first is good with me. If you're going the Kritikal route, you should have some fire links to the topic (my threshold is higher on that). Despite having extremely admirable goals and intentions, non-topical K's make this event less accessible and empirically do not make this space more inclusive - otherwise policy numbers would be thriving.

No plan texts or counterplan texts please (Note: a counterplan text is not saying 'another solution is better than the solution being presented by the resolution' -- that's just an argument and you should answer it...)

High threshold on theory. Despite being tech over truth 95+% of the time, I have limited tech expectations on theory since I don't want to punish students who couldn't afford debate camp to learn the technical aspects of theory. If something truly unfair happened in the debate, then go for it by arguing 1) we should have this norm and 2) you violated that norm. To beat theory argue it 1) shouldn't be a norm or 2) you didn't violate the rule or 3) we should have a different norm instead of the one you provided. If you argue theory every debate, I'm not the judge for you. It is a check on unfair debate practices, not a strategy to catch your opponent off guard. I believe I have voted on theory 2 times in the hundreds of rounds I've judged--I have yet to vote on theory in PF.

Random things:

-Link turns need to win a non-unique to be considered offense. You can win a debate with me by going for just this

-Post-dating is good, but you need a warrant for why the date difference matters

-Going for everything is a bad idea. In a typical debate, 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary should start the collapsing process. I agree with the coaches who call 'making choices' the most important skill in debate.

-I am a judge who sees most arguments in gray - not black and white. I struggle with most decisions and not because I didn't understand your arguments.

Finally, debate can be stressful--if you find yourself in an important debate with me as a judge, it might be a good idea to watch the following video. I may be stressed as well and watching it during prep time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZZkZPcxp_I

Questions? Just ask!

PF Debater for 3 years in highschool. I am a very flow heavy judge. Make sure to extend arguments and tell me how we are evaluating the round. Can't handle speed very well, but I will do the best I can. I like statistics and I like to hear why I should prefer your evidence vs the opponents.

Debated (mostly) Policy for Vermillion HS from 2009 to 2014. Bachelor's from Beloit College with a major in Philosophy and a minor in Political Science.

I'm looking for a focus on clear argumentation and strategy, but do what you do best and you'll do fine.

Tech > truth except in rare cases.

I did not compete in debate in high school or college. I'm more of a layman judge with a background in communications/media theory and nearly 20 years of LD and public forum judging experience at the high school level. I typically judge at three or four Wisconsin high school tournaments each season. I have judged LD at NCFL for the last few years.

Stick to the basics. For LD, time should be spent on the value criterion debate and contention levels equally and the contentions should uphold the value structure. For PF, give me analysis and citations. Don't just throw statements out to see what sticks. I want to hear why I should care about what you are saying.

I want to hear and process what you're saying, so please do not speak too quickly. No spread. A moderate pace is fine. Quality is better than quantity.

A list of voters in your final speech is helpful, but not required.

I award speaker points based on a number of factors, including clarity of arguments and delivery.

My speech/forensics experience includes three years of high school competition and three seasons at the college level.

Short Version

I have ten+ years of debate experience and will buy any argument, as long as it is well structured and fair. I am known to be a very progressive judge in Wisconsin, however on Nat circuit level it might be better to treat me as a Flay judge. I do love a good traditional debate, but do like progressive debate. Most importantly have fun in a round!

Long version

Event Preferences

PF: Tech>truth within reason.

speed>collapsing: Share a doc and go for everything, yes even if that means spreading. I generally HATE time suck contentions, like don't waste my time flowing something you know you are going to drop. Provide more education to the round by running quality arguments, or end your speech early.

full case>paraphrasing: In general the more you can take the good file sharing habits of LD and CX and use them, the quick and better the round will go.

LD: LARP (Policy-style arguments i.e. Plans, CPs, Disads, Topicality) > Trad/Phil (Standard LD case) > Ks/Performance > Theory > Tricks> Disclosure Theory

CX Neg: Disads>T>Specs>CP>K>Theory > Tricks> Disclosure Theory

CX Aff: traditional cases>aff Ks>Disclosure Theory

Thoughts on certain topics

Framework: Please tell me how the framework contextualizes your offense / defense in relation to the ballot and/or the round. I require framework to also contextualize how your opponents arguments are implicated by your Framework arguments.

Argument Resolution: I reward debaters who clearly articulate and provide reasons why their warrants, impacts, sources are stronger in this round – Impact calc and voters are great ways to do this. Debaters who provide well warranted arguments on the flow that are developed early and throughout the debate get both high speaks from me and my ballot.

Theory: I vote on well developed procedurals, I do not vote on blipped shells that blow up later in the debate so have voters and standards don’t just give me an interp and violation - this isn't to say don't run T in front of me but rather that you need to provide me a well developed justification for why to prefer your side. Focus on impacts through a education/fairness filter will be the easiest way to my ballot on this issue. I do hate it when teams use theory as a time suck.

K debate: I have read and actively coach a lot of critical debate but you should not however assume I know the literature base you will be pulling from, feel free to ask prior to the start of the round about my familiarity. The more specific your argument is to the round or issue at hand then the easier route you will have to my ballot. I usually am not a fan of Perm because it can make the debate muddy. I do love conditionality debate.

Tricks: If is one thing you should not run with me, it is tricks, I like a clean and fair Debate.

Disadvantages: Disads are my favorite off case argument. I evaluate Disads first on the risk of intrinsic link to the AFF before questions of uniqueness and the way this implicates the affirmative, this isn't to say questions of uniqueness don't implicate the link but questions of link comes first and then are determined to be strengthened / weakened by the uniqueness. - Work done on the impact level to have strong warrants as well as good weighing are an easy way to my ballot.

Counter Plan: My second favorite off case argument to see. Make sure they are mutually exclusive and AFF can’t perm. Also I hate Perm debate usually on CP because it is either an easy win or waste of my time. I think overall Cp play well with Disads and are a easy way for NEG to win my ballot.

Speed: I am perfectly fine with speed usually I will only yell clear once and it is because you are not speaking clearly.DO NOT SPREAD ANALYTICS WITHOUT A DOC.

Flashing: Add me to the email chain, my RFD will be better if you do.

justinflynn190@gmail.com

Background:

Debated 2002-2006 at Brookfield Central High School; 

Policy and PF Coach at Nicolet High School from 2010-2015. This is my sixth year judging.    

Summary: I prefer policy based arguments (case, DA’s , CP’s) but I am willing to vote on whatever you bring up. Give me a clear analysis of how I should vote and I will. Also I see debate as an educational activity so ideally your arguments would add to the educational environment of a debate.   

Paperless: I’ll stop prep when the jump drive is out of your computer.  Mark cards as you read them.

T: I find reasonability to be fairly persuasive for the Aff but I can be persuaded to vote on T given a clear violation story. If you want me to vote on T, I need you to explain the in-round abuse or why I should vote on potential abuse. 

K: I am not well read on K evidence, so if you do run a K I would ask that you spend time truly explaining the technical aspects of your K. I prefer a more specific Alt and actual articulation of the link story.   

Theory: I, generally, agree with “reject the argument not the team”, but if given good analysis I would consider dropping the team. I understand the value of the theory debate as promoting fairness in the activity but I need a clear abuse story.

 Conditionality: I’m pretty neg if there is only one conditional counterplan. I would say that I am neutral with two conditional counterplans. Three or more, I am pretty aff.

 Identity/Performance: I really don't have much experience with this type of debate. If you engage in this type of debate in front of me, you need to clearly explain the goal of what you are doing is, how the ballot allows you to achieve that goal and why this goal is important.

You will need to do work to get me on the same page as you, but I am definitely open to evaluating this type of debate. 

Debated policy at Millard North High School, currently in my second year out.

I like to weigh debates on a more big-picture level. Honestly i am not the best at handling rapid-fire tech speeches. I'm competent enough with it, though. I won't important things if they are handled accordingly. I'm just not an ideal judge for the style.

I don't really feel one way or the other about perf con good or bad, disclosure theory, or most types of framework.

I am not a fan of framework that doesn't provide any suggestion of an alternative model of debate rounds that reaches out to the aff in some way (i.e. T version of the aff to at least show that you're trying to do something productive).

I know more about identity-politic Ks than i do about high-theory Ks.

I can keep up with speed and 0.5 extra speaker points if it's relatively clear too.

Don't worry about making eye contact with me during your speeches/crossex. It makes me feel kinda awkward.

Preferred Pronouns: She/her

Current Affiliation: Rufus King High School

Conflicts: Rufus King High School

Debate Experience: 4 yrs policy in high school, 16 yrs policy coach

Rounds judged in 2022-23: 7 rounds, I primarily operate tournament tabrooms in Wisconsin

Email: stephak88@yahoo.com

I have not judged this season. Please keep this in mind. Do not assume I have seen your argument before or am up on how the argument has progressed over the season. Due to this, I would also recommend a more moderate speed - especially on theory args/analytics or I will likely miss something.

Argument stuff:

1. I dislike contradictory negative worlds in a big way. Totally fine with as many multiple worlds as the negative wants, but if they contradict each other, I am easily persuaded by this being an uneducational strat choice.
2. Topicality: If you want to win on T, you will have to invest time in it (this means EXPLAINING your standards/voters, not just rambling off "Fairness, Education, and Jurisdiction"). Show me concrete in round abuse.
3. I am fine with Counterplans but they need to compete with the aff. Also need to respond to theory or perms even if you kick the CP.
4. If you are running a K that is based upon rhetoric, and you engage in the rhetoric yourself, you will lose. IE-if you are running something like Ableism and use language that links to it, you will not win in front of me. I enjoy K rounds when the debaters demonstrate knowing the arguments and not that they can just read off some blocks.
5. If you are run a non-traditional affirmative, I would prefer it to be in the direction of the topic somehow & probably have some sort of advocacy statement/actionable item within the case that I could vote “for”. If there is a round of a traditional policy team vs a non-traditional team/in-round solvency args, I’d strongly encourage a fiat or framing debate of how I should evaluate impacts that occur in two totally different spaces.

Stylistic items:

1. Clash is good. Roadmaps are good. Signposting is good.
2. Last two rebuttals should be crystalizing the whole round down to the couple of main reasons why you win.
3. I do not flow cross ex. If you are making arguments in cross ex I will not have them down.
4. Tooling your partner to the point of scripting their speeches for them will mean lower speaks from me
5. Saying “this argument makes no sense, so I don’t need to answer it” is NOT an answer. Tell me why it makes no sense and why that means I disregard it.
6. Throwing jargon around, especially with regards to theory or critical debates. Most likely, I am familiar with your argument and completely understand what you are saying. However, that does not mean you can just throw around terms without demonstrating to me that you actually know what you’re saying.

I consider myself a policy judge, mostly because I think it is extremely unlikely a debate judge can be truly tabula rasa. I will listen and evaluate any argument presented in round, so long as it is not morally objectionable (e.g. no sexual violence good, racism good, etc.). I have coached teams across the spectrum of debate args- straight up policy arguments, one-off K teams, performance teams. At the end of the round, tell me why you should win. Give me the bigger picture beyond the scope of the round we are in and tell me how IT impacts the world/society-whatever “IT” may be (AFF plan, CP, K alternative, DA, Solvency Turn, whatever). Outside of debate, I was a substance abuse counselor for three years, have degrees in Psychology and am a Behavior Analyst working with individuals with special needs. I added this information a few years ago because some teams I've encountered have read arguments that misquote psychological theorists because these teams expect every judge to be pre-law. I will know that you are misquoting them.

Topicality: Although I am not a fan of topicality, I will vote on it. However, I am more likely to vote on topicality if the negative is able to prove in-round abuse. If the negative is able to garnish specific links, it is going to be pretty difficult to prove loss of ground or fairness in order to claim abuse. This is generally how I also vote on theory.

Disadvantages: I will vote on a disad if the negative can prove that the impacts of the disad outweigh the solvency or at least risk of solvency of the affirmative. I believe that the internal link of a disad is a must. It’s difficult to make the leap from some generic or somewhat generic link to some large, terminal impact like nuclear war or extinction; there needs to be an internal link that ties the link and the impact. I also believe that uniqueness is essential, in the sense of how the affirmative plan uniquely triggers the link to the disad. Affirmatives are generally more likely to win a disad by running offense on the disad flow; just a suggestion.

Kritiks: I am kind of in love with K’s and tend to vote on them more often than not. I think that K’s are important in the sense that they tend to raise larger questions about the world that we live in, and the policies we are discussing. They engage in the mindset or framework behind these policies, as well as how these policies perpetuate or worsen the status quo, regarding issues like discrimination, racism, sexism, oppression, poverty, etc. If a negative is able to prove that critiquing these assumptions are good, I’m likely to buy the K framework, or at least weigh it against the policy framework of the affirmative. I think it’s important that the affirmative use the 1AC as a resource for showing solvency of the harms of the K. Like a disad, the affirmative should be making uniqueness claims on the K, questioning the marginal increase in disadvantage of the status quo via enactment of the policy change, comparative to the solvency of the affirmative advantages; if the affirmative is able to prove that isn’t reason enough to reject the affirmative, I’m likely to vote affirmative. I am not a fan of reject the affirmative alternatives, there needs to be more depth, more analysis to the alternative; or give me some analysis why rejecting the affirmative is key, ie. in-round solvency, role of the ballot claims, etc.

Counterplans: A counterplan should be competitive; meaning it should be mutual exclusive of the 1AC, and should include a net benefit. Without a net benefit, the CP is not competitive, and I have no reason to vote for the CP over the affirmative plan; this pretty much comes down to the impact debate again on the net benefit versus the affirmative plan.

Framework: I think framework is a must when it comes to K’s and performance cases. You need to make it clear to me how to frame the round, why I should prefer one framework over another. I also think it is essential to impact framework, within the round, as well potential implications outside of the round.

Add me to the email chain at dalarson130@gmail.com

As a debater I competed mostly in Policy for in state tournaments (Wisconsin) and I competed in PF on the national circuit. As for L.D. I had little to no exposure to that form of debate during highschool however since graduation I have judged many L.D. rounds and I am well aware of the in's and out's of L.D. I'm a very tech oriented debater, stick to the flow, answer your opponents arguments, and you’ll have a good chance of winning the round.

Policy

Quick Version - Everything is debatable. I will do my best to keep myself out of the round as much as possible. I went for both policy and critical arguments when I debated so I don't really have a preference, although I am probably better oriented with policy oriented rounds. Remember that my preferences are always available for negotiation (besides the things listed in the "unacceptable" section) so do what you do and PLEASE don't try and conform to whatever things I put on here.

Other Meta level things - A good analytical argument beats a bad card everyday of the week. Also, a dropped argument is a true argument, however, this doesn't matter if it isn't impacted. Comparative impact analysis is a must. I try to stick to the flow. I will default to offense/defense. I think it is extremely rare for there ever ever ever to be zero risk of a link.

T - I default to competing interpretations. I think you need to have a counter-interpretation in order to make me vote on reasonability. Topicality debates too often come down to whining, whereas it should be treated like any other section of debate. Impact your arguments and do comparative impact analysis (i.e. why education outweighs fairness, etc.).

CP - They should be competitive. I believe counterplans can be textually competitive, but obviously the net benefit should be formulated as such. I find myself leaning neg on a lot of CP theory questions (agent, pics, dispo, states) and think that you should reject the argument not the team. As a side note, if running topical counterplans is your thing, then do that. Also, I can be persuaded that any differential of a link could be a possible net benefit, but if it becomes a wash, I will not be working for either side.

Conditionality- My predisposition is that the neg should get one conditional counterplan. As with everything, this is debatable. Along this vein, unless the neg explicitly says it I will not "reject the CP and default to the status quo because it's always a logical option."

Kritik - I think that debate should be a model for policy-making education. Reps and generic language Ks often run from topic specific education. Topic specific Ks that turn and/or solve the aff are better. I appreciate well run Ks, and ran a fair amount of Ks when I debated, so if it is your thing, do it well.

DA - I love a good politics debate more than anything. I am less likely to vote on cheap shots (intrinsicness, vote no, fiat solves, etc.) but can be persuaded otherwise. Evidence comparisons on all levels of the disad are necessary whether you're aff or neg. If I'm left weighing impacts after the debate because no one has done any comparative work you're probably not going to like the outcome. All in all, disads are good so you should probably run them.

UNACCEPTABLE - Cheating (obviously). This includes scrolling down on the speech doc ahead of where people are reading, clipping cards, cross reading, the whole shebang. If I catch you doing this, I will assign you a loss and minimum speaker points. Hint: It is pretty obvious when people are clipping cards.

Paperless - I will stop prep time when the jump drive is ejected from the computer. Do not abuse me being lenient with such problems. If I notice you flowing the speech doc instead of the round, I will probs tank your speaks. It seems to be that a lot of debaters don't even listen to speeches of other debaters anymore. Listen to the other team and flow what they are saying, after all, debate is a communication activity.

Speaker Points - I try to assign speaker points relative of the division I am judging (i.e. I won't be as harsh on a novice as I would a varsity debater)

L.D.

Do to my policy background I am definitely open to progressive L.D. debate, whether it be Kritiks, K Affs, Plans, Counterplans, anything you want. Also speed is a non-issue.

Values and Criterion/Framework- Generally I see these being underused by the end of the debate. Most debaters I see simply assert that their way of framing the round is better and the only justification they have for it is just the definition of their value and criterion. In a debate you should be telling me why your interpretation of how to frame the debate is preferable. Whether that be because your interpretation encompasses that of your opponent, the education that is garnered from debating under your interpretation is greater, portable skills impacts, etc. Also, tell me what happens to your opponents case/impacts if you win framework. It is typically far less obvious than it seems to you what I should do to your opponents case and I’m not one to try and decipher that you are implying that if you win framework that I should throw your opponents case out. If that really was something that I should automatically do, there would be no purpose of debating the substantive issues of the resolution; there would only be debates on framework and nothing else in this world. On the other side, if you are losing framework tell me why your case can still be weighed or at the very least which parts of it still can be weighed. Typically, you lose a lot less of your case then you think you would even if your opponent wins framework.

Impacts- This is the other part where I believe most LD debates are lacking: impact calculus. Tell me why your impact is more significant than your opponents. Whether it be because your impact is the root cause of your opponents, your impact has greater access to things such as intersectionality (I know that’s a weird way to phrase it, but I couldn’t think of anything better), or simply based upon a greater magnitude of an impact, whatever. Just because you’re not in policy debate you are not excused from doing impact calculus. This is especially true because there are many death based impacts in some LD resolutions. When it comes to this as well, USE YOUR FRAMEWORK, the reason you read framework is in order for you to give priority to your impacts. Be sure to tell that to me outright. Whether you tell me on the framework or impact level debates is fine, but do it somewhere.

P.F.

Come on bruh, it's P.F., however, if you try to bring up or extend an argument that has been dropped in a previous speech in your Final Focus, I will tank your Speaks

TLDR: Open minded tabs judge. I don’t care what you run as long as you have evidence to back up your claims. My role is to evaluate the round and not change how you would debate. I would like to be on any email chains: lalarson10@gmail.com

Experience

-       I debated novice policy for one year and did three years of PF. I mainly debated within the Wisconsin circuit and attended a few national circuits. 

Technical Beliefs about PF:

SUMMARY/FINAL FOCUS CONSISTENCY

-       In order for me to evaluate arguments in the final focus, they MUST be in the summary.   This includes offense from case, turns from the rebuttal or defense you want to extend.  If you want to win with me at the back of the room, you must be consistent.

RULES BASED ARGUMENTS

-       Plans and counterplans have their own place in PF and if justified by the language in the resolution - I'm okay with. I am not very sympathetic to "you can't have a plan/counterplan in PF" or other rules based arguments unless well laid out. Impact the breaking of the rules by the opposing team or find a better argument against it.

Technical Beliefs about LD:

VALUES AND CRITERION/FRAMEWORK

-          Generally, I see these being underused by the end of the debate.  Most debaters I see simply assert that their way of framing the round is better and the only justification they have for it is just the definition of their value and criterion.  In a debate you should be telling me why your interpretation of how to frame the debate is preferable.  Whether that be because your interpretation encompasses that of your opponent, the education that is garnered from debating under your interpretation is greater, portable skills impacts, etc.  On the other side, if you are losing framework tell me why your case can still be weighed or at the very least which parts of it still can be weighed.

PROGRESSIVE LD DEBATES

-         I will vote for any type of argument, including critiques, performances, plans, theory, etc. However, my experience with evaluating these kinds of arguments is limited, so they must be articulated and weighed clearly.

Misc:

SPEED

-       I do not care about how fast you talk. If I cannot understand you, I will say "Clear". Jargon is good as it usually helps me understand what you are saying. If it stops being helpful, my expression will let you know. If you are spreading then make sure you slow down slightly for taglines and signpost in rebuttals. 

ARGUMENTATION

-       I am in favor of unconventional argumentation. I am happy to vote for big (albeit unrealistic) impacts as long as there is a solid link chain. As a debater, I frequently made arguments about nuclear war and extinction so I am familiar with the argumentation. Impact Calculus should also be used when weighing an impact.

-       I am not in favor of violent argumentation. I will not vote for racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive arguments, and I might intervene against teams making them. A surefire way to ensure that I vote against a team making an oppressive argument is to say: "As a judge you have an ethical obligation to vote against arguments like these because they exact violence on people that you are supposed to protect in this space."

EVIDENCE

-       During the round evidence should be exchanged quickly and often. Evidence exchanges will not be counted towards prep time, but the team reading the evidence will need to take prep to do so unless they read it during a speech or CX. If a team does not have a piece of evidence available, I will disregard it. I will call for evidence after the round in four scenarios.

First, if during the round a debater tells me to look at specific evidence I will ask to see it. If the evidence is misrepresented I will reevaluate the argument that the evidence relates to as though it had never been read, which likely means that I will no longer be comfortable voting on that argument.

Second, if you cite a piece of evidence that I have read, and it is blatantly misrepresented I'll want to see it to see who has the correct interpretation. For example, if a debater reports the wrong date for an event for which I know the correct date, provided that the date matters for the argument and the argument is made a voting issue, I'll need to see the source. In this case, do not be tempted to falsify the date on the evidence, I will google it to make sure that what you give me matches the actual evidence.

Third, I'll call for a piece of evidence if it's obviously false. For instance, I might want to read evidence that states that during the round global nuclear war broke out and everyone outside of the room is dead.

Fourth, if there is a "tie" I will ask for evidence from both teams. (This occurs when neither team weighs any of their arguments, extends clean offense, or has an obviously bigger impact.) If either team has misrepresented evidence pertaining to their key arguments I will vote against them. If each team has a similar quality of evidence I will intervene in the best way I can.

Experience: LD debater in high school, with some experience in forensics, PF, and Congress. 5 previous years of experience judging LD/PF. One year head coach at Whitefish Bay. Just... tons of judging and lots of informal coaching.

Background: studied philosophy and English in college. Former Certified Peer Specialist for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, training in related areas including extensive continuing education at levels required to maintain professional counseling certification. Suicide prevention educator, mental health and disability rights professional and activist. Additional experience in Library policy and UW shared governance. Formerly a waitress. I’ve done everything. My life is informed by being a bilesbian, disabled, mentally ill, neurodivergent genderqueer femme anarchist. Any marginalization of a disadvantaged group of people will probably not weigh in your favor. I currently work in a variety of fields on the bird app and I work pro bono except in cases where I am being used or abused. I accept donations in all forms. #MutualAid Labor Organizer with the IWW in IU690. Schizoaffective and ADHD + atypical autism and unspecified personality disorder; flashbacks, panic attacks, eating disorder, history of self injury in active long-term recovery. Vasovagal Syncope and occasional seizures under control. I am Fat and I am More than Fine with that. I am an activist and a terminally online support figure, but I film cops in the streets.

Spread/progressive argumentation: fine by me, but not a substitute for the fundamentals of LD, and generally does not belong anywhere near PF, unless adapted to fit the values of clarity and decorum that are paramount in that division. If you are in LD, this means you must still give me a value structure/ethical premise, even if it is framed in a non traditional manner. Spread and progressive argumentation do not inherently impress me, and do not impact whether or not you win a round. That said, I can probably listen faster than you can speak, and I can definitely follow use of policy terms in-round. I do prefer that you clearly emphasize taglines for arguments, and I place a high premium on enunciation of words. I believe you can and should show the rise and fall of sentences and arguments, even when speaking at a high WPM. If your spread is incomprehensible, overly monotone, or does not show appropriate emphasis of key words, you shouldn’t be spreading, although this isn’t a dealbreaker.

Style/decorum: don’t be a jerk. I will dock your speaker points heavily or drop you in extreme cases if you are not respectful of your opponent. If you are an experienced debater against a novice, you MUST adjust your style, speed, and argumentation accordingly so that your opponent can clearly understand all arguments you make. Debate needs to be welcoming to learners at all levels, and I won’t stand for intimidation or degradation of new debaters. If you’ve learned the skills to debate well, you shouldn’t need to use any gross tactics to win a round against a novice debater. However, I do not care if you sit or stand to speak, and I’m not a judge who prioritizes forensics skills over the actual arguments made in the round. Things like eye contact and posture will have zero impact on the ballot, nor will clothes or cosmetic aspects of speech.

Paradigm: tabula rasa basically. I am open to any and all arguments except for blatantly bigoted ones. That means don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, classist, or anything else gross. This has historically only been an issue on certain PF topics. You ARE more than welcome to make argumentation about issues of prejudice and oppression, and I find impacts that combat oppression to be at least as convincing as policy-making impacts.

Voters: MAKE SURE TO GIVE ME VOTERS!!! I want to know what the debaters think is important in the round, rather than deciding for myself. If you don’t tell me, I will have to decide what I think is important, and that might be completely different from what you thought was important. You don’t want me to have to do that.

Flow: make sure to clearly flow all arguments, and if you drop an argument, tell me that you’re dropping it, and why, even if that reason is just that you don’t think it’s worth spending time on. If you cold drop an argument, I will assume you didn’t understand it or forgot about it, and your opponent might easily win off of it if they pull it through the round. Crystallize in your final speeches, and tell me why things matter. Additionally, DO NOT assume I will intuit the impacts of your arguments for you. I am not a mind reader, and even if I have picked up on the impacts, they don’t matter unless I know why you think they matter.

Clash: this is not competing oratory, this is debate. You need to directly and explicitly interact with your opponent’s arguments. Again, I am not a mind reader, so I won’t cross-apply your arguments to those of your opponent for you.

PF: I’m really an LD judge, so I might be a wild card here. Make sure to show me why things matter, and feel free to interpret the resolution in new and interesting ways.

LD: This is first and foremost ethics debate, give me ethical structure and impacts. If you want to address policy/the real world, tell me why this is important to do on the resolution. We live in a world of ought, not is, and I will never prioritize logistics/pragmatism/statistics by default. Some resolutions need real-world policy, but you have to tell me why you think the resolution needs that. I am not a mind-reader.

I will give 15-second grace periods to finish an argument or answer to a question. Time yourselves, although I will also time you. Phones and computers may be used in round. If I am touching my phone or tablet, it is to refresh my timer or to enter info into an e-ballot. I am never texting in round except in the extreme case that there is a 911 text, in which case I will tell you immediately.

Be good to one another <3

I am an assistant coach. My older son was the reason I started judging. He completed in LD debate all 4 years of High School and he graduated from High School in 2015. I did not debate in High School or College. Starting in 2012, I have judged PF and LD. I prefer LD in terms of the time it affords debaters to develop an argument and that it can includes philosophy. However, my experience is more traditional so if you are trying to run progressive argumentation--know you run the risk of me not understanding what you're talking about. The burden is on you to get me to understand your case--not the other way around.

Do you judge on framework or contentions?
The short answer "it depends".
I flow so it just depends on where I think you are winning.

Use good evidence.
Make sure you are using reputable sources (peer-reviewed and/or follow journalistic ethics) with proper citation. Some examples of sources that I don't find reputable: Infowars, Breitbart, Shareblue.

Have your evidence ready to show your opponent should they ask for it.

Side note: If your opponent "flashes" or emails their case to you during the round, delete it at the end. Don't use this as an underhanded opportunity to help your team prep out against an opponent. Although, I think LD has evolved where everyone may be sharing cases in advance of the rounds. I guess my rule of thumb--ask your opponent what their comfort level is.

Clarity.
Speak loudly and clearly. Direct your speeches to the judge. In Cross, direct your questions to your opponent. I don't flow cross, but I am listening for things I think I will hear in speeches. I like roadmaps (off-the-clock) and "sign-posting" within the speech to help with my flowing. Be clear in your arguments in terms of how you are linking everything together (framework, claims, warrants and impacts). Think of ways to easily summarize an idea. Word economy.

If you use jargon, be prepared to explain it.

Slow down on your tag-lines for your value, value criteria, contentions. Also contention taglines are like headlines--make them pithy and to the point. Then you use your evidence and analysis to explain your contention.

Remember to continue to use your evidence in your rebuttals. Give me the impacts of the world you are creating.

If something is dropped or extends through, you need to say it. Don't assume I will do that for you.

Summarize what you want me to write on the ballot with Voters in your last speech. You can't cover everything in the last 2 minutes so it should be a summary of what you think I should write in my RFD.

Speed. In terms of speed, talking faster than 300 words/minute (wpm) you do at your own risk. I read at about 300wpm. Most audiobooks are read at about 150wpm. Anything being read faster than 300wpm is faster than most auctioneers. I find "spreading" to be a lazy tactic--trying to throw everything you can at your opponent also means you want the judge to sift through your pile of arguments as well. If you speak faster than 300wpm, then you run the risk of me not catching the important parts of your argument. At a minimum, slow down on your taglines for your value, value criteria, contentions, warrants.

Clash. I'm looking for you to address what is presented in each others cases. If you run progressive arguments, link it back to the resolution and your opponent's case. Otherwise, I may or may not see it as topical/relevant.

If there is no clash in the around then you are asking me to intervene--so I may judge then on presentation or entertain skills. Just keep this in mind.

Be respectful. Opponents should be respectful. I understand the adrenaline can get flowing, but being abusive or sarcastic won't help your cause and will lower your speaker points. Even if you are the smartest person in the room and I am dumbest, the judge's determination is what matters. Insulting the judge will also lower your speaker points.

References:

SPJ Code of Ethics

Revised September 6, 2014 at 4:49 p.m. CT at SPJ’s National Convention in Nashville, Tenn.

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Updated 11/16/16

I am the head debate coach at Sioux Falls Lincoln High School.


Policy Paradigm
I approach the round as a policy maker. I am open to most arguments as long as you tell me how they function in the round. The 2NR and 2AR should help me write my ballot. Give me impact calculus and weigh arguments for me.

Argumentation - Extension of a tag is not necessarily an extension of an argument. I want explicit warrants and analysis. You should be telling me why to prefer your argument/evidence over your opponents. I am not a fan of having to call for evidence because you are supposed to be doing the debating, not me.

Theory - I am not a fan of running theory just for the sake of running an argument. There should be some clear abuse or violation for why you are running theory. Theory arguments are metadebates and should be clearly treated as such; Arguments should have clear links and impacts.  

Kritiks - I have a background in communication theory. So if you are trying to argue that the discourse represented by my ballot decision matters, then I need to understand the clear implications of how me circling a decision on a piece of paper has any impacts beyond the round. So, be sure you help me understand the actual role of the ballot and the role of other people in the room to your overall advocacy. I put a lot of pressure on the K to truly prove how they impact beyond the round. Debate on face is a process of hypotheticals because congress will not actually do the plan. So if you are going to tell me that the K matters because it has real world implications, you better be able to prove it.

SPEED - I should be blunt and just say I do not like speed. With the introduction of computers many debaters have abandoned even the façade of clarity in their speaking. Debaters seem to forget that I do not have the case in front of me as they are reading. So I cannot read as you are speaking, which means I cannot understand the arguments at the speed you are presenting them. Without times of clear and slowed down explanation, I am not sure how I am expected to consider the arguments. If you are going to speed, you better have a plan for when you will slow down the explanation. Cross-x is a pretty good time for this. I do not yell clear. At some point you should look up to see if I am flowing. If I cannot process what you are saying then I may have to put my own interpretation onto the evidence. I do not like doing this, so if I can vote somewhere else on the flow, I will and you may not be happy with my interpretation versus yours.

Speaking and presentation - If you care at all about your speaker points, then you will not speed read, you will not do tag-team cross-x, and you will not be shouting out to your partner through their whole speech (A few indications that they should move on from an argument are ok.) For me, speaker points are given based on your speaking style and ability, not your ability to parrot your partner. I only flow what is said by the person who is supposed to be giving the speech. Part of your speaker points also reflect your strategy in the round. If you are not making strategic choices, then you are not a strong speaker. Don't read 5 more impact scenarios, when all they have done is attacked the link level of the debate. Make sure you are reading the right type fo theory for the arguments in the round. 



LD Paradigm
Understand that the following are my preferences, at the same time I am willing to admit that I do come from a more traditional style circuit. So I will always evaluate the round in front of me. I will not do work for the debaters. Where ever I can vote with the least amount of intervention is where I will make my decision.
Argumentation � You need to explain your arguments to me and how they interact with the rest of the round. Just because you extend something does not mean you win the round. All it means is I have a nice line across my paper, you must tell me why that matters. I will take clearly extended warrants where debate is happening versus a blippy �extend A it was dropped� with no analysis at all.

Framework - I realize that there are times when I just have to judge the round in front of me. I have a preference for Value/Criterion structure, but if you run a different framework choice, there needs to be a clear explanation and warrant to the new framework. In the end this will guide how I evaluate the rest of the round. Arguments need to be connected back to the F/W. If an argument does not really fit or work within the winning F/W, then it is not really evaluated in the round unless you tell me why it still functions.
Value Debate - I am not a fan of the trend to ignore the value debate and pretend it does not matter. I think a good solid value with justifications for the value can be very strategic in a round. I want to hear some warrant for your value choice beyond simple, "Resolution says moral so Value is Morality, or Resolution says (any derivative of justice) so value is Justice.� Also I have a hard time with Morality as a value. This requires that we assume we know what is good and moral, which is the whole point of the debate. What all this means is that I will prefer values that are clearly linked to the resolution beyond simple word similarities and also values that actually help us weigh what is good or bad.
Theory/ A priori � Do not avoid debate and clash. I am not the biggest fan of theory or A priori�s because they are usually just attempts to really clashing with your opponent. With theory you must show some abuse on the flow. I have a high threshold for both of these arguments, which means if you want me to vote on it, you better devote some time to it. Do not just extend it, spend 30 sec on why you win, and then expect me to vote.
(FOR BLAKE TOURNAMENT)  I am not a fan of theory as a way to get an easy win on the new topic. Everyone has had the same limited prep with it, so do not try to use some small interpretation of the resolution to try and claim abuse on your opponents case. If the interpretation under question has some sort of logical connection then I will accept it. On the flip-side, if you have some really hyper specific interpretation of one word, so are therefore claiming you can create one small scenario in which to affirm or negate, also not going to be too happy and then theory will become easier to win.
Delivery style  I still believe in this activity as a communication based activity. Not treating it as such will impact your speaker points. I would like you to stand, be respectful, and be intelligent. The only time your style will impact the actual decision is with speed.

SPEED  Most debaters have become very adept at speaking clearly and quickly, unfortunately, while I may be able to hear every word you say, I cannot usually process them. At some point, if there are warrants I need to evaluate or arguments that are so important you want me to vote on them, they need to be explained just a little slower then you read your case. Cross-x is usually a great time to get this done, so at least slow down there to explain yourself. I do not yell clear. At some point you should look up to see if I am flowing. If I cannot process what you are saying then I may have to put my own interpretation onto the evidence. I do not like doing this so if I can vote somewhere else on the flow I will or you may not be happy with my interpretation versus yours.

EMAIL: mcgin029@gmail.com

POLICY
Slow down; pause between flows; label everything clearly; be aware that I am less familiar with policy norms, so over-explain. Otherwise I try to be more-or-less tab.

LD

I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.

I coach students on both the local and national circuits.

I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.

You can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing impacts back to whatever decision mechanism(s) have been presented.

I prefer that you not swear in round.

I debated LD at Edina High School in Minnesota for 3 years through 2009, including extensively on the National Circuit (TOC twice, Nationals twice) and MN local circuit (runner-up at MN state championship). I'm familiar with all different styles of debate ranging from stock, traditional, progressive, critical, performative, and most others. I coached LD at camps around the country from 2010-2013. I've been out of LD since 2013, but have continued to judge at one or two tournaments per year. From 2010-2013 I also competed in Parliamentary Debate at Carleton College and went to Parli Nationals in 2012.

I will vote on arguments made by the debaters in the round. The only exception to this is if one of the debaters engages in an offensive act such as hate speech or personally verbally attacks the other debater. Beyond that - I will let the debaters set the terms on what I should vote on, whether that is a critical framework, a performative framework, a 'traditional' value/criterion structure, theory, or something else altogether. Within whatever framework, I view my role as to adjudicate who was the most responsive and engaged the particular points / arguments of the round the best. Please truly try to understand and to respond to your opponent's arguments.

If you have any questions, please ask!

Name: Brad Noethe

Email: brad_noethe@hotmail.com (Yes, I want to be on the email chain)
I'll just cover few of the things that most debaters question within paradigms.

Speed:

I'm fine with speed, just signpost and give good impacts and analysis with extensions.Extensions need a claim, a warrant, and an impact. If you just say "extend Foucault, so people die," I will not evaluate that as an extension. If your opponent doesn't properly extend an argument, demonstrating your opponent didn't during your rebuttal is a compelling argument.

Theory:

Despite the fact that many don't run theory well, I do enjoy hearing it when it is run well. I would like to hear theory when it is genuine, but if the shell is won, I will vote for it, even if the abuse was a bit questionable. Debaters should be able to beat bad shells. I also believe that theory is bi-directional. However, if the shell itself is ignored, generic turns don't matter.

I'm not a big fan of abusive strategies run with the intention of drawing theory in order to use multiple rvi's and theory turns. It is definitely not the best way, or even a good way, to get my ballot. If your opponent is using abusive arguments, running theory would probably be a good strategy. I think most of the theory turns and rvi's that are used when abusive suck and I am much, much more likely to buy arguments against them. I'm not a theory hack, but I think theory is a legitimate tool to check abuse. Rvi's need to impact to some interpretation or notion of debate or the purpose thereof. I.e. if fairness is not a voter, then rvi's on why theory is unfair don't matter. Also, weigh the rvi against the initial violation or explain how the rvi functions in relation to the shell or the round as a whole.

I will not vote for case disclosure theory or any theory argument that references disclosure or any substance of the wiki. If you are for or against case disclosure, cool, but I don't want to see debate rounds be altered by something that amounts to a philosophical difference in a debate trend, particularly when such theory shells are not substantially answered, nor do they create truly productive in round discourse. Additionally, debaters should not be harmed based upon decisions of their coaches on the philosophy of meta debate issues. If that pisses you off or makes you want to strike me, please do so. Thanks.

I will vote for T, but give me a voter. If you don't give me a voter, it only gives me a reason to reject the argument. I typically think that rvi's on T are bogus, but I will vote for them if won.

LARPing:

Plans: I like hearing plans if they are well developed and give a good impact scenario. I think plans, however, do need to have either some form of standard or some framework justifying why I evaluate arguments in any particular fashion, as impacts only matter inasmuch as there is some notion established of what is good or ought be done.

Counterplans: I enjoy counterplans as long as they have competitiveness. It seems obvious, but counterplans need to have mutual exclusivity. I'm not a huge fan of pics, and I don't think I've ever heard a debate that was made better by the existence of a PIC, but I'll vote on them.

Pre standards/A priori:

I don't mind apriori, but tell me why I should evaluate the argument before the standards. That being said, the more of those type of arguments that you run, the more sympathetic I become to theory.

Critical arguments/Kritiks

I like hearing critical arguments if you've developed them and understand the argument. If you don't understand or can't validate and support your reasoning, your speaks will suffer, and it will be difficult for me to vote for you. I'm most familiar with Nietzsche and Foucault, so you can go quickly if running them. For other authors I should be fine, but if I give you a funny look, you may want to slow down. I don't read anywhere near as much philosophy as I used to, but I still love critical positions.

If you have a weird or new argument you want to try with me, by all means do try it. You should do whatever you believe will be most strategic for you to win the round. If an argument is dumb, it should be easy to beat. I think that K's need an alternative, unless there is framework to justify the lack of one. Also, please specify the status of the K/CP/DA in the speech doc or immediately disclose it in CX. Not a paradigm issue per se, but I wish more debaters would be unconditional/dispo with their statuses, but it shouldn't affect my decision.

I want to mention that I am VERY sympathetic to perf-con arguments, so please keep that in mind.

Speaks:

I give pretty high speaks, generally. I give speaks based on how impressed I was with your performance in round. I don't care about attire or the way that you deliver your speech. If you want to stay seated, that's cool.

It is much easier for me to know where to vote if you provide me with some weighing. It is not paramount by any means to achieve my ballot, but it is preferred and makes decision making much easier.

I really don't have a preference as to where I vote. I'll vote wherever, just tell me why I should vote there and how you are winning that argument. That being said, I default to the standards if you don't tell me to vote anywhere else. I don't presume a particular way unless told to do so.

Random Stuff:

I think if your opponent calls for your case or cards, you should flash/email it to them. If you don't, I won't be too happy about it, and your speaks will probably suffer. There is no good reason to hide your case. Also, if you ask clarification questions of the case while you have it, I believe your opponent has a right to look at the case to explain something to you. Wait for your opponent to set down the page they are reading before you go to grab it if they are reading it, and make sure you don't make a scene or anything when getting it. Also, I expect debaters to answer questions during prep time, and I'm fine with flex prep, as long as the neg had the opportunity to use it in the first cross ex period. I don't care how you dress, as long as you are moderately clothed.

If you have any other questions, ask me before the round and I'll be happy to answer them. Good luck and have fun. This is your game. Do with it what you will.

I debated LD on the local and national circuit for three years (2014-2017) at Whitefish Bay High School.  

General:  

-My least favorite rounds are those in which I feel no one could have learned anything new about the topic and those in which either debater is not able to engage effectively.

-I value quality over quantity but encourage you to make as many quality arguments as you can. Speed is fine if you’re clear but please be considerate of your opponent. 

-Good analytics are usually enough to answer bad cards.

-If you don't understand your own argument or it is too full of jargon for you to explain it to me or your opponent, chances are I'll have a lower threshold for arguments against it and your speaks may suffer.

-My default for speaks is pretty generous. I will generally give speaks based on how well I was persuaded, the flow aside. Among other things, I'll lower your speaks for rudeness, a lack of clarity, and arguments that are blatantly offensive. I’ll raise them if you impress me.  

-I never flashed and rarely disclosed as a debater (I was a paper-debater stuck in his ways). Do as you will here.

Traditional debate: I am sympathetic to this style of debate and encourage you to engage it instead of swamping it with speed and progressive styles of debate your opponent is unfamiliar with (you may lose speaks for doing this excessively).

Philosophy: I love a good philosophical debate and think frameworks are underrated in LD. Be creative, run something interesting, and don't bastardize or try to misrepresent a philosophy. If you do run a framework, please do something with it in the round. Dropped/poorly impacted frameworks make rounds unnecessarily muddled. If you don’t run a framework, I will presume that you are operating under your opponent’s.

Policy arguments: I ran a lot of policy arguments as a debater. I am generally more accepting of counterplans than plans, but it depends on the resolution. For plans, tell me why your plan affirms. For counterplans, tell me why it competes. The longer and less specific your link chains, the lower my threshold for arguments against them.

Theory: Check abuse if it's present; I have a low threshold for arguments against abuse if it's obvious. I do not like frivolous theory and will need an extraordinary amount of convincing to vote on it. Clearly weighed/impacted theory is the only theory I feel comfortable deciding a ballot on.

Kritiks: If you choose to run kritiks, please do good weighing with your role of the ballot and have a solid link. The reading of the K shouldn’t be sufficient to win the round, so plan on telling me specifically about the link in that round, how the K is interacting. I don't find vague, immaterial alternatives convincing; be sure to sufficiently justify yours.

Presumption: I will not vote off presumption triggers or skep triggers.

I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)

I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.

Congress at the bottom.

PF

(For online touraments) Send me case/speech docs at the start please (timscheff@aol.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.

I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.

Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.

I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.

Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.

Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.

Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.

Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.

CONGRESS
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.

If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).

I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.

For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.

A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.

In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.

I should not judge Brookfield East.

I have coached LD for about 35 years at West Bend East and, most recently, Brookfield East. I have had numerous national qualifiers, some who have broken to elimination rounds. This includes one national runner-up and 2 national semi finalists. I think I know what I'm doing.

Now for the stuff you really care about. Persuasive communication is key. I am not an information processor -- that's what the debaters are suppose to do. While I don't make my decisions based solely on speaking style, this is an important component of LD. You can't persuade me if you're busy gasping for air. You should also consider that it takes time to process arguments. If you go so fast as to make that difficult, it won't bode well for you.

Each debater has the responsibility to persuade me that the resolution is either true or false. I prefer this happen with a few well developed arguments rather than many underdeveloped ones. I do not vote based on quantity. Quality is much more important. While I think I keep a pretty good flow, line-by-line is not key for me. I prefer to think of LD as dueling oratories. Give me the details on two or three stellar points and leave the trivial for another debate. At the end of the negative rebuttal and the second affirmative rebuttal I expect to be given voters. Why should I prefer you to your opponent?

LD is values debate. Therefore, the value and value criterion are important. Debaters should show me how their value will be obtained through their criterion and then relate their case to that criterion. If a debater can show me that their opponent's criterion won't achieve the value or that their case better achieves the opponent's value, then the decision is easy. In rounds where there is no values debate, I have to look to the specific cases and which does a better job of defending their position on the resolution. While philosophy plays an important role in developing arguments, there must also be a practical side to the debate. 

While evidence isn't the be all and end all of LD, your arguments should be accompanied by warrants. Then give me an impact. Please weigh your arguments. Why is what you're telling me important to the round? If you don't, I have to do it for you and you might not like the results. Besides, I'm really lazy and don't want to have to work hard at doing what you should have done.

If you have more specific questions, don't be afraid to ask.

Experience:

I was a policy debater at Waukesha South for 3 years and a PF debater for one. I've been judging for 3 years and am coaching PF and LD for my second year at Waukesha South.

Speed:

Speed is fine with me as long as you slow down for tags, analytics, role of the ballots and plan texts (I like to understand what I'm voting for and why) and make it clear when you're moving onto a different card. I prefer to not have evidence flashed to me so I can judge based on how good a job you do of debating as opposed to how good I am at reading. On that note, if you really want me to have it in front of me you are welcome to flash to me as well.

Kritical Arguments: Having been a policy debater, I am okay with anything progressive in LD. However if you are going to run anything beyond a typical cap k, etc. I prefer to have them clearly explained to me instead of being spread (even if this means you just take a couple seconds after each card to put it in your own words).

Theory: I am also okay with any theory arguments. If you want me to vote on this however I will need very clear and convincing standards and voters.

Framework: Quite honestly, the easiest way to win my ballot is to present me with a clear framework/role of the ballot, explain it, and don't let me forget it. Tell me clearly why you win the round under this and why your opponent doesn't. If your opponent reads framework and you don't explain to me why you fit into it. If you both read competeing frameworks and nobody tells me why to prefer theirs I will revert to a simple cost-benefit analysis mindset.

CPs: I am not a fan of CPs on their own. I do like them run in conjunction with something, such as a K with a CP alt or a CP with a DA.

Speaking Preferences: This all having been said, I am perfectly happy judging an entirely traditional LD debate round as well. Sometimes it's even refreshing to see. I do appreciate debaters who don't spread and make an effort to speak eloquently and fully understand every card they read. I'm not a fan of rude debaters but a little bit of sass will probably make me smile. In crossfire, don't dance around your opponent's questions. If you answer them in a straight forward manner I'll understand your arguments more which is better for you in the long run.

I try to remain as much of a tabs judge as possible, but nobody's perfect.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Anton Shircel

Coaching:
Assistant coach/judge for Sheboygan South from 2004-2006
Assistant/Head coach Neenah from 2006-2010
Assistant coach Waukesha South 2012-2014
Head Coach Sheboygan North High School 2014-Present

High School Experience:
Policy debater at Sheboygan South for four years (1998-2002)
Debated Novice, JV, Varsity 4, and VSS
Participated in Forensics, Mock Trial, and Student Congress

Public Forum Philosophy: Traditional
Speed: This format is geared towards having citizen judges. Speed should reflect a quick-paced conversation. Clarity and enunciation is paramount in understanding the arguments. I shouldn't need to follow a transcript of your speech to understand what you are saying.

Framework: This is a key point that needs to be made in the first speeches. The pro/con need to show the framework of how they achieve a win for the round. This needs to be clearly stated and then proven in their contentions. A lack of framework shows a lack of focus. If for some reason that there isn't a framework, my default one would be a basic Utilitarian framework.

Off Case Arguments: I am not a fan of kritiks, theory, and other off-case arguments in a public forum round. Look, I am not going to write it off on my own. The opposition still needs to address it. However, it will not take much beyond a basic abuse argument for me to cross it off the flow.

Role of Summary & Final Focus: At this point, the arguments have been stated. Each side should be weighing the different positions and showing why they are ahead on the flow. The summary is also the point where there should be strategic choices made on collapsing or kicking contentions/arguments.

Policy Debate Philosophy: Policy Maker
Speed: My preferred rate of speed is about medium to medium-high. I don't mind a faster round, however I ask that tags be slowed down to indicate a change in cards/arguments. Related to that, I tend to prefer fewer/well-constructed arguments to a melee of short/under-developed arguments. As far as open-cross examination, I am not against it. However, both sides must be okay with the situation.

Topicality: I am not the biggest fan of topicality. There must be a clear violation of the affirmative for me to consider voting. I like a structured t debate with clear standards, etc. and competing definitions. I see topicality as an a priori issue that I vote on first in the round.

Counterplans: I think counterplans are a great negative strategy. There needs to be a clear Counterplan Text and some sort of competitiveness. I am not the biggest fan of topical counterplans. Perms need to be explicit as well so that there is no vagueness.

Kritiks: I am a fan of kritks, but the negs need to make sure they understand them. It looks bad if the neg stumbles/contradicts themselves in the cross-examinations. Also, I need a clear alternative/world view from the negatives if they hope to have me vote on it at the end of the round. Again, perms need to be clear and explicit and show that competitiveness does not exist.

Theory: Theory is not the end-all of the rounds for me. I tend to look at rounds as real-world. Some theory would be needed at times such as perms/topicality but should only be used as support to an argument and not as an argument itself.

Lincoln Douglas Philosophy: Traditional
Speed: My preferred rate of speed is about medium to medium-high. I don't mind a faster round, however I ask that tags be slowed down to indicate a change in cards/arguments. Related to that, I tend to prefer fewer/well-constructed arguments to a melee of short/under-developed arguments.

Whole Res Vs. Plan Specific Cases: I prefer whole resolution debates. If I wanted a plan-specific case, I would be judging policy.

Counterplans: See my thoughts on plan-specific cases above. The same holds true for negative positions that go plan-specific.

Theory: It should be an essential aspect of your position. However, I do not enjoy when it falls into the theory of debate itself.

Former LD/PF Coach at Marquette University High School in Milwaukee, WI and former PF debater at Brookfield East High School (class of 2014) in Brookfield, WI.

As far as the round goes, my bottom line is that I don’t want to have to intervene so please make the round as clear as possible. Speaking more generally, I think debate can teach

Short Version

LD

I prefer traditional debate.

I'm open to progressive arguments if they're well-presented and clearly link into the resolution, but tread carefully and at your own risk.

Don't spread. It's a cheap strat with no real world value. Left up to me, it would be banned from debate.

PF

PF is supposed to appeal to a lay audience. Please don't be lazy and fire off all your research at me as quickly as possible Be very clear with arguments and thorough with your rebuttals.

Give voters in the Final Focus. Please.

Long Version

LD

I’m theoretically open to anything as a judge so long as you extend your arguments throughout the round, offer good impact calc, and provide solid links to the resolution (especially if you plan on running anything 'progressive'). This may seem basic but it's only happened in 10% of the debates I've judged, maybe less.

As far as content goes, I would much rather judge a traditional debate. This means providing a framework (ex: value and value criterion) followed by a few topical contentions. I'm okay with Kritiks and theory so long as they apply to the resolution. For example, a Native-American oppression K works well with a resolution about education (seeing as the US actively destroyed Native-American culture through boarding schools), but it doesn't work nearly as well when debating criminal justice. In other words, please tailor your Ks (or theory) to the resolution. If you don't, I'll conclude that someone gave you something to read and that you don't actually know how to debate and will be clamoring for reasons to drop you for the remainder of the debate.

Spreading is a cancer in LD debate. Sure, debate is like a game and spreading is a strategy you can employ to win the game, but it's not something you're going to go pro in- there's no professional debate league. The value of debate to you as a debater derives from the skills it equips you with to navigate through life (i.e. research, articulation, persuasiveness, audience adaptation, etc). The point is that spreading is not a skill you will use in life after debate.

To clarify, I won't drop you for spreading but will gleefully tank your speaks. If both debaters want to spread I will judge the round as you wish but will tank your speaks. I'm sure this annoys many of the "progressive" LDers reading this, but if you're actually good at debate, adapting shouldn't be a problem.

PF

It saddens me that I need to put this in my paradigm, but I will drop you if you run anything progressive in Public Forum. PF is supposed to appeal to a lay audience; it is a debate where any generally informed member of the public should be able to judge. If you try and go over the heads of the judge or your opponent and avoid thoughtfully engaging with the resolution, I will not hesitate to drop you on that alone. You are a cancer to PF and should strongly consider moving to policy or LD.

As far as best practices go to win me over in PF (again, pretty basic stuff but I rarely see it in round): make sure you extend any offense you plan on using in the Final Focus through the summary, provide good impact calc (ex: why should I prefer saving lives over saving money?), and please give voters.

It amazes me when I hear people say "and if I have time, I'll give voters." Voters are by far the most important part of the Final Focus. You can't whine about being judge-screwed if you didn't do the work yourself and clarify what the judge should vote on.

Feel free to reach out with any questions: ashveersingh12@gmail.com

Valley HS '14, University of Chicago BA '18, JD '21

I was a national circuit debater and later a coach at West Des Moines Valley. Since 2018, my involvement in debate has been limited to semi-regular judging. I am now a lawyer practicing in Des Moines.

I am fine with almost any warranted argument, run what you want to run. However, I won't vote for an argument that I don't understand. I don't pretend to understand stuff that doesn't make sense. You should thus think hard before reading "high theory" or bad tricks. In general, I probably judge like a rustier version of my former students and colleagues at Valley.

If you are one of the faster (or less clear) debaters on the national circuit, it is probably a good idea to be a touch slower than your top speed, especially online. Slow down a lot on theory interps and plan texts. I'll let you know if I can't understand you. I don't flow off speech docs, and I don't vote on arguments that I don't understand, so clarity is in your self-interest and hiding gimmicks is not.

I like: (1) Analytic philosophy. (2) Creative arguments of any style. Read your weird stuff. (3) NC-AC and straight ref 1NCs. (4) Weighing on all layers, including framework. (5) Good traditional rounds.

I don't like: (1) Reading for a full rebuttal, especially a late one. Your speaks are inversely correlated to your time spent reading. (2) Being mean, rude or exclusionary. Don't frivolously uplayer or spread versus inexperienced or traditional debaters. Generally be the sort of person in round that you want to be out of round. (3) Blippy, purportedly game over arguments, including most tricks and independent voters. I need to actually understand the arg, why it means you win, and the warrants for both. (4) Unreasonable disclosure theory. If you think your interp might be unreasonable, either because of your opponent or the violation (no new affs bad please), read something else.

Updated 4/11/23 -I haven't judged circuit debates in a hot minute, don’t go your top speed and develop your arguments more thoroughly than you normally would.

Email for speech docs: smitnich91@gmail.com. Make sure there’s parity in document access during the round.

My background: I did LD for 3 years. I was the director of debate at Hopkins for 4 years, coached at St. Thomas Academy & Visitation for 2 years, and have been the head coach at Apple Valley since 2017. I’ve worked at VBI since 2012 and I’m currently the director of instructional design and curriculum.

· Good debate involves well developed arguments and genuine interaction/clash with the other debater’s arguments.
I’m not going to be able to flow twenty back-to-back 1-sentence arguments at 400 WPM. If I didn’t initially catch the argument, then I’m not going to evaluate it.

· Quality >>>>>> quantity of arguments.

· I’m going to be skeptical of arguments that start out as 7 seconds of content but suddenly become multiple minutes of a final rebuttal. If the argument isn’t adequately developed in the speech that you initially make it then I’m likely not going to give you credit.

· Generally open to most arguments, but don’t forget that this competitive activity is also an educational activity. I understand progressive argument mechanics, but don’t assume I’m up to date on recent developments in the meta.

· Strategies designed to avoid meaningful engagement probably isn’t given me evidence you are doing the better debating.

Speed

Nope |---------------------X--------------| Heck ya

Stock/Traditional

Nope |----------------------------------X-| Heck ya

Policy

Nope |-----------------------X------------| Heck ya

· I think Nebel T is correct but am totally game for y’all to have a throwdown on this.

· There’s this odd trend to stray far from the core of the topic literature for some far-fetched x-risk scenario. Not a huge fan of this trend.

· You have to establish a baseline of credibility for me to care about your scenario. @ folks reading extinction impacts on the standardized tests topic.

Philosophy

Nope |-------------------X----------------| Heck ya

· Cases should be built around the topic literature, not just the author/theory you want to read. If your contention is just analytics and/or cards written in a wildly different context than what the topic is about then it probably isn’t a very strong case.

· I think phil has mainly become a vehicle for tricks, which makes me sad.

Kritiks

Nope |-------------------X----------------| Heck ya

· I used to be a giant K hack because I love critical theory. Unfortunately, K debates have become increasingly convoluted and clashphobic.

· I think the aff should probably defend the topic. That doesn’t mean there’s only one way to interpret a topic. I’ll listen to non-t affs, but framework debates will be an uphill battle for you. Just reading a contestable 1NC link card isn't a very persuasive argument for you not having to defend the topic.

Theory/T

Nope |------------X-----------------------| Heck ya

· Theory/T obviously has a place in debate since debaters are true artisans at inventing & discovering arguments & strategies that skew the playing field or rob the round of any educational value.

· That being said, theory/T debates happen way more frequently than they should.

· Theory/T needs to be sufficiently developed in the first speech that the argument is made.

· If the violation is absurd or silly it isn’t going to pass my sniff test. But once the sniff test has been passed, I’ll evaluate the theory/T debate as tab as I can. Default competing interps. Neutral on RVIs.

· You need to actually show that the crime fits the proposed punishment. I think offering an alternative punishment to solve the violation is a criminally neglected response to theory/T.

Tricks

Nope |---X--------------------------------| Heck ya

· Winning through tricks is rarely evidence that a debater is doing the better debating. When a hyper-focus on strategy comes at the expense of having an enriching experience in the round then I get sad.

· I almost never vote on presumption/permissibility/skepticism since there’s usually a risk of offense.

· I default to comparative worlds and need some convincing to adopt truth testing.

MISC

An important note for progressive debaters: if you’re debating someone that is a traditional debater or significantly less experienced than you then you should adjust what you do so that there can be an actual debate. Don’t read a non-topical Baudrillard AC at 450 wpm against a new novice. Don’t have your 1NC be skep and a PIC against a traditional debater who hasn't had the opportunity to learn about the mechanics of such arguments. Slow down and/or read arguments that your opponent can actually understand. Use your best judgement. If I think that you knowingly made choices that functionally preclude your opponent from engaging then I may murder your speaker points and/or drop you.

I care deeply about inclusion and accessibility within debate. I’m more than happy to vote against debaters who engage in practices that promote exclusion or inaccessibility, even if they’re winning on the flow. I’ll be a tab judge until you give me a good reason not to be.

I will yell clear or slow once or twice; after that it is up to you to pick up on non-verbal cues. I expect you to make serious alterations to your delivery if I’m forced to yell. I won’t vote on an argument, even if it is in the speech doc, if I didn’t flow it or understand when it was initially read in the round. I’m a trashcan judge to have in the back of the room when the rebuttals are filled with hundreds of 1 sentence arguments (especially for T/Theory debates) without real clash, impact analysis, and framing.

Speaker Points: The factors I focus on for determining speaker points are: strategic choices, execution, and how persuasive I found your argumentation. My normal range is 25-30, with 20-24.9 being reserved for super rough or problematic debating. My speaker points are relative to the strength of the pool: 30 for champion level performance, ~28.5 for a performance worth making it to elims, and I aim for ~27.5 as an average performance.

she/her(s) | snyder.3562@gmail.com | (920) 891-5190 | last updated 1/19/2024

conflict/ish: neenah

tl;dr

-happy with virtually everything but usually prefer more progressive material, happy with speed, like to be on email chains (snyder.3562@gmail.com)

-i default to offense/defense/util; your impact calc should be adjusted to suit the standard (you can tell me to evaluate otherwise!)

-i eval by 1) looking at independent voters that you articulate to me, 2) identifying the winning fwk (or ROB, ROJ, standard, etc.), which you should be telling me about 3) look at relevant offense for either side under winning fwk, obvi considering rebuttals and esp. turns 4) weigh that offense based on your impact calc

ld paradigm

-TECH/TRUTH :)

-speaks: 26-27: ill-prepared or very new; 28: average, probably a winning record; 29: i think you should advance; 30: i think you should get to semis or further.

-happiest to saddest: kritiks, k affs, plans & LARP, phil affs, theory stuff, traditional stuff

-as a debater I went for phil args locally (kant/deont, progressivism, baudrillard, etc.) and more kritikal stuff on the circuit (fem, cap, neo-col)., plans intermittently, and theory absolutely never lol

-always be doing impact calculus.... rank your voting issues.

experience/background

-debating experience: semi-competitive LD debater in high school, cleared at a handful of lowkey nat tournaments but nothing past quarters, won some local tournaments, didn't go to camp, graduated in 2016

-coaching experience: coached at neenah, wisconsin 2016-2022, mostly LD

-judging experience: judged mainly LD a lot 2016-2022 - on the circuit 5 times a year before covid and 12 after. currently judge 1-2 times a year

-real life: in undergrad i studied secondary ed, english, and french. currently i work in local government and study public administration, expecting to graduate with an MPA this spring

email me w qs: snyder.3562@gmail.com

put me on the email chain

kedrickstumbris@gmail.com

tldr: do whatever you want - I've judged and coached at nearly every level (Wisconsin locals to TOC elims) and will consider any argument presented. While I try to be a neutral adjudicator as much as possible, I certainly have some predispositions that I think are important for competitors to know. Those are below. This doesn't mean you should preclude yourself from reading any argument you prefer (an argument you know well that I don't like will always do better than an argument you don't know well that I do like), but my predispositions should probably affect the way you explain your arguments and how much detail you want to put into them. I truly do despise judge intervention; please resolve debates so that I don't have to intervene and get my predispositions involved in the round. If you think I'm doing too much work for either side, it's because I would've had to do more for you. Oftentimes what you perceive as "bad decisions" are actually your poor explanations.

if you have more specific questions while doing prefs - email me - I'm very responsive

if you have more specific questions during pre-round prep, I will answer when both competitors are in the room

predispositions to other things:

- I was a policy debater and my students are all util debaters. I think substantive engagement about the topic is a good thing. This doesn't preclude reading a K aff.

- Phil debates are boring. I don't enjoy judging them. Nobody ever explains what their buzzwords mean. You should probably have to defend implementation.

- I don't know why theory debaters keep me high on their pref sheet. I feel like I've made it clear that I think you're annoying and that doing research and engaging the topic is valuable. I'm probably not the judge to argue "spikes/theory key to small schools" shenanigans because my team proves that argument is heckin' wrong.

- Your CPs need net benefits. Your disads/advantages need uniqueness. Your aff needs an inherent barrier.

Speaker points- I have recently tried to adopt a more rigid speaker point scale based on data that reflects the average points speakers get at major national tournaments now. This point scale and its inception are discussed by Bill Batterman on his blog The 3NR. The scale is found below.

29.3+ — the top speaker at the tournament.

29.1-29.2 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.

28.8-29.0 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.

28.6-28.7 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.

28.4-28.5 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.

28.0-28.3 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.

27.7-27.9 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.

I'm a forth year parent judge that splits time between LD and PF.

I prefer slower, in depth, articulate speakers. Not a fan of spreading. if I can't understand what you are saying, I won't flow it.

I like a good contention level debate. Make sure your arguments clash and you're not just replying to your opponents tag line. Address all of your opponents points, clearly extend your points and weigh them against your opponents. Call out your voters.

Make sure you arguments tie into an organized framework. I have a hard time weighing your arguments if your all over the place or if they don't tie back to the framework.

I enjoy a spirited debate but you must ALWAYS be polite and respectful to your opponents. If you are a jerk or derogatory to your opponent, your speaker points will take a major hit.

Doing an email chain? I'd love to be on it: amwelter12@ole.augie.edu

Short version

Policy/LD background. Former debater and current coach. I time prep, but you should too. Please don't rely on me to give you 30-sec intervals.

PF - Big fan of disclosure theory and paraphrasing theory, but I'm iffy on most other theory. Don't tell me why your impact is big, tell me why it's BIGGER than your opponents'. I don't need you to win every contention (kicking out is under-rated). I don't need you to win more contentions than your opponent. I just need you to tell me why the arguments you DO win are more important than the other arguments in the round. Impacts are crucial for that. I'm a sucker for "even-if" weighing. Please don't make me judge a round where both teams close for everything, some contentions have links, some have impacts, and none have both. If you call for a card, prep starts as soon as the card is in front of you. Your speaks will take a hit if you steal prep. Your speaks will take a bigger hit if you make blatantly new args in FF (which I won't weigh). 2nd rebuttal should respond to 1st rebuttal. Uniqueness is probably important.

LD - Connect your contentions to your framework (or your opponents') or tell me why you don't have to. Winning framework alone is almost never enough to win the round. It is in your best interest to give me more than one way to vote for you (e.g. "I win and uphold my framework so vote for me there, but even if you don't buy that then here's why I win under my opponent's framework"). I am willing to vote you down for paraphrasing evidence instead of reading/quoting cards if your opponent calls you on it and gives me any explanation for why it's a bad thing to do.

Long version

I prefer topical debates on substance--that's where I've found that I'm least likely to get lost. I also prefer judging debaters who are doing what they love and do best, which doesn't need to be substance or topical. If 10 is top-speed, then I can handle about a 6. I will try super hard to follow the round, but it'll be in your best interest to slow down (substantially so on theory). LD/Policy experience. Always up for a K if there’s a solid link, but not familiar with most K lit. I’ll vote for almost anything with a valid warrant behind it.

Please, ask me anything before the round. I've been judging national circuit LD for the last few years and there are no arguments I'm opposed to on principle (except overtly discriminatory arguments...), but there's a solid chance that I won't have the same understanding of how a round should break down or what's meta. Asking me stuff before the round minimizes this chance.

My default weighing preferences (I can absolutely be convinced away from these):

Pre-fiat K > T = Theory > Post-fiat K > Substance. Condo is fine, running a ton of blips or spikes is sleazy and I'm way less likely to vote for you on those.

I default to truth-testing in general and reasonability on theory. I have a high threshold on theory and probably won't vote on without clear in-round abuse.

Pet peeve: people who say "moral obligation" or "d-rule" with no warrant beyond "x is bad". If you want me to weigh your args as a prior question to your opponent's args, I need a solid warrant for that.

Higher speaks indicate I learned something from you (either about debate or about your argument) and/or that you clashed often and effectively.

Lower speaks indicate that I think your strategy was sleazy (tricks / spikes), or that you were a jerk to your opponent.

I might disclose speaks, but I'll be the one to tell you--please don't ask.